Justice

If you googled the word "justice" yesterday you probably came up with hundreds of news articles. Justice was in the news. The President named a nominee for Supreme Court Justice and the California Supreme Court's justices issued their long awaited ruling on gay marriage. Starting with Washington: Sonja Sotomayor is certainly a historic choice for the Court. The first Hispanic nominee and only the third female in the high court's history. There is no doubt she is not a "moderate" or a "centrist". She is a liberal. She will be expansive in her view of the Constitution. Her decisions will read into the language things that are not readily apparent in order to achieve a certain result.
Conservatives are already caterwauling about her, but guess what? This is how it works. Obama won and he gets to appoint the Justices. Just as I felt George W. Bush was under no obligation to appoint "moderates" or "centrists" to the court, neither is President Obama. The Senate is entitled to advise and consent, but to me, absent some showing of disqualification for the job along the lines of past unethical or criminal conduct, the nominee should be confirmed. In the end, I expect Judge Sotomayor will win confirmation, probably by a large majority.
In California the Justices were busy dealing with those nasty little checks and balances. After they invalidated a statute prohibiting same sex marriage on constitutional grounds, those pesky voters passed an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage. This time the Supreme Court upheld the will of the people.
The Sotomayor nomination and the California ruling highlight the question of the judiciary's role in society. I do not think anyone disagrees that the world is very different than it was in 1787 and we face many issues the Framers never dreamed of. Slavery still existed, women could not vote, I really do not believe the Framers had any feeling as to same sex marriage or abortion. Free speech, initially thought to be limited to your voice or writings has evolved into a host of different mediums, remember the Framers weren't e-mailing drafts of the Constitution over the Internet.
So what do Judges do? Do they use their authority to push society forward in a certain direction, or do they allow the democratic process to operate and step in when the process has not functioned properly? Chief Justice Roberts has suggested that Judges are umpires and I agree with that. Their job is to enforce the rules. There is an additional role however that gets trickier: when the rules are not fair to all the players. Often that is somewhat subjective. There are the obvious issues: clearly so called separate but equal schools were anything but and the courts stepped in to eliminate what the democratic process had produced.
What about things that are not so clear? To some the case for allowing same sex marriage is as obvious and compelling as ending segregation. To others it is an affront. To many however, it is a process that the democratic process needs to work out, but if a Judge does not like the result, can he or she step in? The California Supreme Court has said "yes" and "no".
In the coming weeks we will learn more about Judge Sotomayor. I suspect her philosophy will lean more towards the Judges stepping in to achieve a result that is better, in her mind, than what the democratic process has produced. In California the democratic process is revving up again with more initiatives planned on same sex marriage.
"Justice" topped the news yesterday and after 222 years we are still trying to figure out what it means.

Interesting Times in Which We Live

America seems to be a nation of political contradictions. In November we elected the most liberal Democratic nominee in a generation. Since President Obama's election Washington has gone on a spending binge that was only slightly tempered when worded leaked that funding for condom programs was somehow considered fiscal stimulus.
While Washington has been on a spending bender, the voters in very blue state California yesterday rejected a series of ballot initiatives designed in large part to preserve the budget status quo. Advertising for the initiatives suggested that, without their passage, schools would close and the displaced children would join just released prisoners wandering the streets of the Golden State. Still, the voters said "no" and resoundingly.
So, is it a conservative backlash and revival as some want to claim? I do not think so. If the election for Governor were held tomorrow, I believe California would elect a big government, big spending liberal. Then again, the election is not tomorrow, it is in a year and a half so maybe yesterday's results do offer a glimmer of hope for conservatives.
Right now we are, as a populace, taking contradictory positions. A recent Field Poll (4/30/09) in California was instructive. When asked about individual areas of spending, the respondents did not want to see cuts. When asked overall, and when they voted on Tuesday, respondents felt government is spending too much. The answer seems to be: spend on the things I like, but not on the things I don't care as much about. It is a microcosm of the interest group politics that have crippled California's budget process.
Over the years Californians have voted themselves all sorts of toys and trinkets and feel good policies. The most dramatic was Proposition 98 which required a set percentage of the state budget to go to education. The percentage stayed the same in good times and bad, whether it was needed or not (I know there are those who will argue that more money is always needed for education).
After seeing the success that the education lobby, particularly the teacher's unions, had with hijacking the budget process, other groups have stepped in the get their share. Public employee unions sought and gained huge pension promises. The state got into the stem cell research business. We are now left with a budget that basically cannot be balanced. Too many spending programs have been embedded as Constitutional Amendments leaving any Governor and Legislature with little discretion. When the economy turned down, this process ran on to the rocks.
So what happens now? Californians are still going to want their spending. What is needed is a process of educating the public on what the state spends its money on. The commercials suggest that any cut in the education budget means kids not having bookss and good teachers losing their jobs. It is not that simple. The Governor and the Legislature need to shine the light on all educational spending and show how much of it does not go into the classroom. How much bureaucracy is being funded? How many "studies" are we paying for? Show the people what the education budget really is, then let's prioritize.
It's more than just the education budget however. California is rich in commissions of dubious value, yet great expense. Let's give their benefactors a chance to explain what they are and what they do, then let's prioritize.
Tuesday results show the voters are not fond of decisions made in the backrooms. Sweetheart deals for certain interest groups also are not popular. Yes, we may be living in an era when the people want more government, but cost matters. Perhaps now politicians will turn on the lights and talk to us like adults to explain the programs, the priorities and the costs.
Then let the people decide how much government they want and are willing to pay for. Yes, we are living in interesting times.

Being in Charge

Do you think Democrats ever long for the good old days? You know, back in 2007 and 2008 when there was still a Republican, and an unpopular one at that, in the White House. The Democrats controlled Congress and that was nice, but without having the presidency they could avoid ultimate accountability. They could crisscross the country demanding the closure of Guantanamo Bay, immediate withdrawal from Iraq, full disclosure of the techniques used to question terrorist suspects. They could promise that, when they are fully in charge, all of the evils of the past eight years would be investigated: hearings, truth commissions, episodes of Oprah would expose the misdeeds of the past eight years.
Now they are in charge and it might be a little tougher than they thought.
If you want to close Guantanamo, then you have to figure out where to put all of the "guests". Funny thing, their own countries don't really want them back. There are federal prisons on the U.S. mainland, but the Democrats from those states don't want them there (aren't these just people who the Bush Administration wrongly accused of misdeeds and who need a place to go while we process their paperwork?).
Withdrawal from Iraq? It is easier to talk about ending a war while running for President than to actually do it as President. President Obama, and I give him a great deal of credit for this, has actually decided to rely on the advice of the commanders rather than the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. We will and should get out of Iraq, but we are doing it in a responsible manner that will not undo the success of the 2007 surge and leave a disaster in its wake.
Then there is the "truth" about torture. Apparently the truth is that the Democratic Speaker of the House, while the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, was told quite a bit about these "enhanced interrogation techniques". Speaker Pelosi seems to be defending herself by arguing that she was not in the meetings she was in, or was not paying attention, or did not understand. Next she will be arguing that she missed the translation, the air conditioner was blowing too loud or she had an inner ear infection.
What is clear is that campaigning is pretend, governing is real. It is very easy to say what plays to the base in a political campaign, but a lot tougher to deal with the real world. Questioning and detaining suspected terrorists is not a pretty business. Drawing down a military operation cannot be done overnight. The Democrats are finding out that what they promised may not square with the reality.
What might help the Democrats right now? Well, if they could just lure Dick Cheney out to give a bunch of interviews...oh, never mind.

Another shoe drops

Manny Ramirez: 50 game suspension. It probably no longer should be, but it was a stunner. Why are we surprised by anybody admitting to, or getting caught in, the steroid scandal.

Still, somehow it seemed like Ramirez was clean. Sure he was self-centered in Boston. Yes, he has been a little goofy in L.A., but it still seemed like was clean. Yes, he was playing at a high level into his late 30s, but there was no dramatic spike in his numbers. He has been consistently producing 30-40 home runs for ten years. He did not suddenly go from 20 home runs to 55, 60 and beyond.

Now, once again we don't know. Manny is still a great hitter and probably would have been one of the best in baseball over the past ten years even if he hit 25-30 homers a year. The problem is how do we know?

With each suspension, admission or indictment we are left to wonder whether anything we have seen over the last 10-15 years was real. Sure, the games were legitimate and the best team won, but were the scores and numbers real?

Worse yet, I think we are becoming immune to it. When I heard the story, I found myself calculating the time frame of his return. July? Perfect, just like last year when he came in from Boston. The Dodgers just acquired their slugger for the second half without making a trade or giving up a thing. They actually save $7 million (Manny's lost salary during the suspension). What a deal! All they have to do is hang around first place until July then let Manny kick start their second half.

I tried to snap back and be mad about it. I am. Manny cheated the fans, and the game. I let my son dress up as Manny for Halloween last year and now I have to explain to him why Manny does not get to play for 2 months. Still, when he returns I am not going to tell him to boo Manny or not root for the Dodgers. We will go on. Baseball will go on.

Sadly however, this scandal is going to be with us for twenty more years. Yes, the number of players flunking drug tests will dwindle (you really have to be a knucklehead to get caught now, sorry Manny), but the stars of this era will become eligible for the Hall of Fame. Do Clemens, Bonds, Ramirez and Palmeiro get in? They were the greatest of their era, albeit a tainted era, but do they deserve to sit in baseball immortality next to Ruth, Dimaggio, Jackie Robinson and Cy Young? The debate will go on and remind us of this scandal.


What I hope the Hall Fame voters do is disregard the whole group. No plaques for Barry, A-Rod, Clemens or Manny. No weekend in Cooperstown for McGwire and Sosa and let's not even get started on Rafael Palmeiro.



Instead of voting these guys in, how about the Hall voters take a new look at some of the stars they have left out. Perhaps their achievements look a little better in light of what we have seen. Can the Hall now find a place for Bert Blyleven, Tommy John and Jim Katt (all pitchers who won over 280 games)? What about the Cubs great Ron Santo? Isn't Bill Buckner and his 2700 career hits worth a look? Perhaps the perspective we should gain from the steroid era is a better appreciation of some of the players who came before even if they did not reach the so called "magic numbers" of 500 homers, 3000 hits, or 300 wins.



Part of what makes baseball great is its history. Baseball can best honor its past and move forward into the future by exiling the phonies and honoring the real greats of the game.

The Passing of a Quarterback

Former Congressman, HUD Secretary and GOP vice presidential nominee and Buffalo Bills quarterback Jack Kemp died on Saturday.

There are a lot of "what if" scenarios in political history and I wonder how things might be different if Jack Kemp had won the Republican nomination over George H.W. Bush in 1988 or if the Dole-Kemp ticket won in 1996 leading to Jack Kemp being the GOP nominee in 2000 (remember Dole was already in his med-seventies in 1996). We will never know.

Jack Kemp was a different type of Republican and it is a shame the party did not follow him to a greater extent. He was a self described "bleeding heart" conservative. He was not one who tried to be a lighter, less expensive version of the Democrats. Instead he advocated conservative solutions to the problems of poverty and education. A Republican talking about poverty and education...what a concept.

For too long Republicans have ceded the landscape of poverty and education to the Democrats and allowed the media to portray the party as uncaring, indifferent or uninterested. Jack Kemp tried to change that. He advocated policies to create jobs and economic growth in the inner cities, recognizing that the best thing the government could do was create the environment for growth and change, then allow the smart people to do it. If you are familiar with some of the work that Magic Johnson's company has done in the inner cities with movie theatres and shopping centers, you have seen what Jack Kemp envisioned. It was an idea known as enterprise zones.

Kemp recognized that education mattered and was a ticket out of poverty. What he did not recognize was the establishment view that continued to chase good money with bad. Still, there were things that could and should be done to improve our schools, and if the school was beyond repair, allow parents a way to get their kids out of the failing school and into a better one.

Unfortunately the Republican Party never nominated Jack Kemp for President and his national roles were as subordinates to traditional and long time Republican establishment figures (Bush and Dole). The party lost out on an opportunity and America missed out on a great debate. Wouldn't it have been something to see Jack Kemp and Bill Clinton or Al Gore debate liberal, big government orthodoxy versus individual empowerment?

There is much talk about how to "rebrand" the Republican Party as though it were a soft drink that simply needs a new ad campaign. What it needs is what Jack Kemp tried to do: engagement in issues that for too long have only been the hallowed grounds of the Democrats. It is a shame that he will not be here to lead the offense down the field.